In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of
interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them.
The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political
equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a
few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially
an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws,
which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards
a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.
4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different
interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of
another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence
of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not
the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.

In all political societies, different interests and parties arise out of
the nature of things, and the great art of politicians lies in making them
checks and balances to each other. Let us then increase these natural
distinctions by favoring an inequality of property; and let us add to them
artificial distinctions, by establishing kings, and
nobles, and plebeians. We shall then have the more checks to
oppose to each other: we shall then have the more scales and the more weights
to perfect and maintain the equilibrium. This is as little the voice of reason,
as it is that of republicanism.

From the expediency, in politics, of making natural parties, mutual
checks on each other, to infer the propriety of creating artificial parties, in
order to form them into mutual checks, is not less absurd than it would be in
ethics, to say, that new vices ought to be promoted, where they would
counteract each other, because this use may be made of existing vices.